Jane Andreas wrote:
> How democratic is the next Nano? Is there a vote or something?
I'd say it's a bit like Linux kernel development, a benevolent
dictatorship with a meritocracy underneath.
> how can we ensure the components we as users want?
You can probably make the strongest case by developing a working
prototype of the feature you want (or a close approximation.)
There's no guarantee it will be liked even then, but you'd have
removed a lot of reasons not to like it, such as concerns about
the feasibility, lack of time to do it, incomplete understanding
of the use or use case, and so on.
It's also easier to rally supporters behind your cause. Pictures
have a strong influence on our animal brain, particularly if
they're moving (the pictures ... well, better if the brains aren't
totally inert either :) And even dictators pay attention to what
the crowd thinks.
The second best choice is to convince someone else to do it.
Sometimes, it's just a question of crossing the right idea with
the right skills/resources. But there's of course the risk that
many may like your idea but nobody comes forward to implement it.
The qi-hw community is still a bit weak on the side of making
things in the physical universe. Ironically, what people do work
on are quite demanding projects that take months of work. The
only small "hobbyist-sized" projects I'm aware of are your crochet
bags and the breakout board by Rikard Lindstrom.
I think there are a lot more opportunities for doing simple but
useful/novel things around the Ben. And in this dictatorship, you
don't have to ask for permission before you act :-)
- Werner